As the world’s political landscape shifts, the reverberations of President Donald Trump’s policies are being felt from Baghdad to Brussels, Ottawa to New Delhi. The past week has seen a cascade of warnings, threats, and dramatic repositioning by global leaders, all in response to the increasingly assertive—and at times, divisive—stance of the United States under Trump. The aftershocks are not just diplomatic; they are economic, strategic, and, for some countries, deeply personal.
On January 28, 2026, President Trump issued a stark warning to Iraq via Truth Social, stating that the United States would withhold all support if Iraq’s parliament chose Nouri al-Maliki, a figure seen as pro-Iran, as its next prime minister. “I’m hearing that the Great Country of Iraq might make a very bad choice by reinstalling Nouri al-Maliki as Prime Minister,” Trump wrote. “Last time Maliki was in power, the Country descended into poverty and total chaos. That should not be allowed to happen again.” Trump’s message was unequivocal: “Because of his insane policies and ideologies, if elected, the United States of America will no longer help Iraq and, if we are not there to help, Iraq has ZERO chance of Success, Prosperity, or Freedom. MAKE IRAQ GREAT AGAIN!”
The warning came just days after Iraq’s largest Shia bloc nominated al-Maliki for the premiership, a move with significant implications for both regional stability and U.S. foreign policy. The alliance of Shia political blocs, which now holds a parliamentary majority, announced its decision the week prior, putting al-Maliki—a former U.S. ally turned controversial figure—back in the spotlight. Al-Maliki first took office in 2006 with American backing, praised for his stance against al-Qaeda and Sunni militants. However, as reported by AFP, Washington’s support waned due to his increasingly sectarian policies, which many believe paved the way for the rise of ISIS.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio followed Trump’s lead, cautioning Iraq on January 25 against forming a government aligned with Tehran. “The United States will make its own sovereign decisions regarding the next government in line with American interests,” a group of U.S. representatives declared in a letter, emphasizing that while Iraq’s choice of leader is its own, America’s response would be dictated by its strategic priorities. One of those priorities is preventing the resurgence of Shia armed groups backed by Iran—a demand reinforced by the fact that Iraq’s oil export revenues are largely controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, an arrangement dating back to the 2003 U.S. invasion.
This high-stakes drama in Iraq is just one front in a broader global realignment. The World Economic Forum in Davos, held from January 20 to 24, revealed the extent to which opposition to Trumpism has crystallized among America’s traditional allies and adversaries alike. According to EL PAÍS, European leaders—including those from the far right, who once seemed natural allies of Trump—have abandoned their previous conciliatory approaches. Instead, they are openly rejecting what they see as the U.S. president’s abuses and insults.
French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at Davos, left no room for ambiguity: “We do prefer respect to bullies; we do prefer science to potism; and we do prefer rule of law to brutality.” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, leader of a party affiliated with Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, was even more pointed: “So many red lines are being crossed. Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else. If you back down you are going to lose your dignity and that’s probably the most precious thing you can have in a democracy.”
These sentiments are not confined to speeches. European politicians from across the spectrum—Marine Le Pen, Jordan Bardella, Alice Weidel, Donald Tusk, Ursula von der Leyen, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer—have all criticized Trump’s administration. Starmer, for instance, called Trump’s remarks about NATO allies’ role in Afghanistan “insulting and frankly appalling.” Ursula von der Leyen, long cautious about criticizing the U.S., urged a “departure from Europe’s traditional caution.”
In the business sphere, Anthony Gooch of the European Round Table for Industry (ERT) articulated a growing frustration: “We were being threatened with tariffs when this was not an economic issue.” Last summer, European industry leaders opted for restraint, but the mood has since shifted. The ERT’s latest statement defends European sovereignty and warns that, if dialogue fails, “necessary steps to defend the fundamental interests of Europe and EU Member States” will be taken.
This new assertiveness is not limited to Europe. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a rousing speech in Davos, urging nations to diversify away from the U.S.-led order—a message that drew a standing ovation. Carney’s call for “flexible coalitions among countries that share objectives and do not wish to be subjected to the imperial impulses of others” was swiftly met with retaliation. On January 24, Trump threatened 100% tariffs on all Canadian exports after Canada inked a new trade agreement with China—an unprecedented move that underscores the breakdown of traditional alliances.
India, too, is rethinking its global partnerships. After being hit with Trump-imposed tariffs—ostensibly for its purchases of Russian crude oil—India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a significant visit to Beijing last summer. Now, India and the European Union are close to finalizing a free trade agreement, part of a broader effort to counter Trump’s protectionist policies. Similar moves are underway in Brazil, which faced U.S. tariffs aimed at protecting former president Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil stood firm, and Bolsonaro is now in jail, a fact Trump dismissed as “a shame” before declining further comment.
Georgina Wright of the German Marshall Fund observed that the “change in the European approach” began early in the year and “culminated” at Davos. She points to a combination of factors: Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, his national security strategy, the Board of Peace initiative, and his perceived indifference toward Europe. “Something changed in Brussels, but also even in the Baltic States and Poland, which, although highly dependent on the U.S. for security, no longer trust the U.S. as they once did,” Wright explained.
Despite the lack of formal coordination among these countries, a clear pattern is emerging. Traditional U.S. allies are forging new trade deals, deepening ties with each other and with China, and refusing to acquiesce to American demands they see as overreaching. The United States, for its part, remains a formidable military and economic power, but the gravitational center of global politics is shifting. As leaders across continents reevaluate their alliances and strategies, the era of automatic deference to Washington may be coming to an end.
All eyes are now on Baghdad, Brussels, Ottawa, and beyond, as the world’s power brokers chart a new course—one defined not by submission, but by sovereignty, resilience, and, perhaps, a touch of defiance.